Here's what the latest research shows.

Straight out of the history books.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

This month, get ready for mummies, monsters, and the scariest witch you've never seen.

For the better part of five decades, we told Americans — implicitly and explicitly — that children were a burden. We built a culture that prizes career over commitment, convenience over continuity, and freedom from ties over the joys of rootedness. We told women that motherhood was a trap, that marriage could wait (or be skipped entirely), and that the future would take care of itself. Now, with birthrates scraping historic lows, we act shocked. We clutch our pearls, roll out baby bonuses, and pretend this was all some mysterious accident of economics. It wasn’t. It was a choice — repeated, reinforced, and rewarded at every level of modern society. The CDC recently reported that the U.S. birthrate ticked up by just 1 percent in 2024 — a glimmer of good news, perhaps, but hardly a reversal of the decades-long fertility free fall. America is still well below replacement level. And the longer we stay there, the harder it will be to recover. A nation that forgets how to replenish itself eventually forgets how to sustain itself at all. In response, former President Trump is reportedly floating a $5,000 “baby bonus” as part of a new pronatalist policy push. The idea isn’t bad in theory, but it reveals something deeper: we’ve reached the stage where even conservatives are trying to buy their way out of a cultural collapse. (RELATED: The Spectator P.M. Ep. 134: Can $5,000 Change Americans’ Minds on Babies?) That collapse can’t be solved by subsidies. It won’t be reversed by one-time payments or campaign-season checks. The problem isn’t just financial — it’s spiritual, civilizational, and deeply embedded in how we teach young people to think about meaning and identity. You can’t bribe someone into believing that family is beautiful. You have to raise them in a world where that belief is affirmed by media, by institutions, by leaders, by life. (RELATED: Marriage Is the Antidote to Societal Decay) The American family has not just been neglected; it has been culturally maligned. Parenthood is now marketed as a luxury for the rich or a last resort for the unlucky. Meanwhile, the cultural left has made a hobby out of undermining marriage, masculinity, and motherhood — all under the guise of liberation. From “childfree by choice” influencers to academic elites who treat fertility like a climate threat, the message has been clear: the future isn’t yours to raise — it’s yours to escape. (RELATED: How to Renew Society’s Commitment to Marriage) Ironically, many of these same voices now panic about the long-term consequences of depopulation: economic stagnation, collapsing entitlement programs, and cultural drift. But that’s what happens when a society turns inward and atomizes itself into lonely, anxious individuals who can’t imagine bringing a child into the world, let alone two or three. If conservatives want to change this trajectory, we have to offer more than fiscal carrots. We need a full-spectrum pro-family agenda that restores dignity to the roles of husband, wife, and parent — not just for those in elite circles, but for working-class Americans who are often told they can’t afford a future. (RELATED: Yes, We Need a National Conversation on Dating, Family Life and Economics) This starts with tax reform. The so-called “marriage penalty” in our tax code punishes low- and middle-income couples for staying together. That has to go. Child tax credits should be expanded and tied to family structure, not just income. Housing policy should reflect the needs of multi-child families, not single urban professionals. Zoning laws and urban design should prioritize neighborhoods where children can thrive, not just bike lanes and cocktail bars. But what is just as important is what we stop doing. We should stop funding institutions that actively denigrate the family. That includes public universities pushing anti-natalist ideology and public schools more focused on identity workshops than basic literacy and civics. It includes entertainment subsidies for cultural products that glorify loneliness and dysfunction. And it includes political leaders, on both sides, who only remember the word “family” when it polls well in Iowa. We’re long past the point of polite nudges. What we need is a cultural counter-revolution — one that re-centers family as the core institution of a healthy society. That means changing not only laws but norms. It means encouraging marriage, celebrating children, and lifting up those who choose the hard but noble work of building the next generation. It means understanding that “freedom” isn’t just about avoiding responsibility — it’s about having the strength and structure to take responsibility for something greater than yourself. This is the real crisis of our time. Not inflation. Not polarization. Not even the border. The real crisis is that our civilization no longer believes in itself enough to reproduce. Until we fix that, no bonus will be big enough to bring us back. READ MORE from David Sypher: New York’s Congestion Pricing Class War David Sypher Jr. is a former Republican candidate for New Jersey state assemblyman for the 22nd Legislative District, and a former candidate for Rahway City Council. The post We Told People Not to Have Kids — Now We’re Surprised They Listened appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) case against Meta, which aims to decouple it from WhatsApp and Instagram, as well as the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit against Google to split off its Chrome browser and Android operating system, sets a dangerous global precedent — especially for the European Union. As a European who worked in Lithuania’s Ministry of the Economy and Innovation, I cannot help but wonder whether Washington fully considered the global effects of cases against Meta and Google abroad. In recent months, negative rhetoric has poisoned the once solid transatlantic relationship. This has fueled irrational, protectionist policies, simultaneously weakening the West and benefiting its adversaries. Businesses and consumers across the Atlantic are eagerly awaiting a deal between the U.S. and the EU that would benefit both sides and help calm the tension. (RELATED: Trump Hates EU Tech Meddling. Why Is He Letting His FTC do the Same?) In Brussels, there’s been a bubbling sentiment that EU trade war retaliation should be directly targeted at U.S. tech firms. The EU has long considered introducing a digital services tax, in addition to the costly investigations associated with the enforcement of the expansive Digital Markets Act (DMA), which issued its first official fines this week against U.S. tech firms. (RELATED: Republicans Should Reject European-Style Tech Policy) Apple has been fined $570 million over its app stores, while Meta was hit with a $228 million penalty for not requiring Europeans to pay to use Facebook and Instagram ad-free. In a change of pace from the Biden years, the Trump administration has been especially vocal about protecting U.S. companies in Europe. In February, the White House issued a directive challenging the EU’s Digital Markets Act and calling for Europe to “make the markets in the digital sector fairer and more contestable.” (RELATED: Will Trump Fix Insidious FTC, DOJ Abuses?) Why is the U.S. swatting at Europe for its anti-tech posture with one hand while it strong-arms those same companies with the other? Granted, the U.S. and EU have crafted distinct regulatory regimes for competition law. Comparing the FTC’s and DOJ’s cases to the DMA is not without its flaws, however, the end goal on both sides of the Atlantic is the same — reducing the influence of global firms, often under the guise of protecting consumer choice. The FTC argues that Meta’s acquisitions were strategic moves to neutralize “emerging threats” in the social networking space. U.S. antitrust advocates, as well as FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, also contend that Meta’s dominance in the sector has been maintained through these acquisitions, ultimately leaving users with fewer choices. However, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp serve entirely different purposes and cater to distinct users and demographics. The ability to crosspost stories from Instagram to Facebook is convenient, but it’s hardly the point. Meanwhile, new social media platforms are emerging across the globe and making their way into the U.S. market. Users vote freely with their attention and new downloads, but still, the world is becoming less open overall. The DOJ argues that Google maintains an illegal monopoly in search by paying to be the default engine on devices, locking out rivals, and reinforcing its dominance. The DOJ’s case against Google could potentially harm consumers by increasing device costs, compromising user privacy, and hindering innovation, particularly in AI development. While China can be expected to restrict access to content hosted by American tech companies, European nations are now debating how to build their own social media network, search engines, and other digital services to replicate the American tech model. Russia is banning American platforms left and right. All the while, regulators in Brussels are sharpening their pencils. The United States is dangerously close to embracing ideas that undermine the very foundations that enabled its tech companies to scale and lead the world. There’s no clear indication that American consumers will have more choices or better outcomes if the FTC gets its way in the Meta case, or if the DOJ breaks up Google, but we do know that Europe is taking notes. If Meta and Google were to be forced into a divestiture by the Trump administration, you can be sure that no one in Brussels will ever take criticism of the Digital Markets Act seriously again. Egle Markeviciute is the former deputy minister of Lithuania’s Ministry of Economy & Innovation and head of digital & innovation policy at the Consumer Choice Center. READ MORE: Trump Hates EU Tech Meddling. Why Is He Letting His FTC do the Same? Republicans Should Reject European-Style Tech Policy Will Trump Fix Insidious FTC, DOJ Abuses? The post The DOJ’s and FTC’s Dangerous Invitation to Europe appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Well, that didn’t take long. A mere 100 days into President Trump’s second term — a term he won in a decidedly free and democratic election — a Democrat Congressman from Michigan named Shri Thanedar has filed seven articles of impeachment to override the election results. (RELATED: Shri Thanedar’s Shameless Stunt) The Democrat Congressman’s goal: to overturn the results of the 2024 election, doing so in the style of a fascist dictatorship. Which is to say, Congressman Thanedar has declared war on democracy. The question for House Republicans now is what to do about it. One could suggest that Thanedar should not be ignored. Instead, the Michigan congressman should be either censured for his anti-democracy move or expelled outright. For censure, the charged congressman would be summoned to the well of the House, where his misdeeds are read aloud. Expulsion, on the other hand, is the so-called “nuclear option.” This requires a vote of two-thirds of the House to agree. And if agreed, the member is out. Done. Stripped of his office, barred from serving in the House for the rest of that term at least. The real point here, whatever House Republicans — the freely elected majority of the House — decide to do, they should make a point of drawing a line that lets Democrats know their War on Democracy will no longer be tolerated. And make no mistake. A “War on Democracy” is exactly what Congressman Thanedar and a number of his fellow Democrats are really all about. The 2024 election has come and gone. Whether Democrats like it or not, Donald Trump was overwhelmingly — quite freely — elected the 47th President of the United States. The role of a minority party is to now accept the political verdict of the voters, to come up with their own policies and plans and get out there and start campaigning for the next election — in 2026. They are free to introduce legislation supporting their policies. And if, as is probable for the 2025-2026 session, they cannot get a majority of “aye” votes, they can keep at it and try to win the next democratic (small “d”) election for seats in Congress — and win back the presidency two years after that. (RELATED: James Carville v. David Hogg? Yes, Please!) In fact, that is the way the American democracy works. Yet what Americans are seeing close up with the impeachment antics of the Democrats and Democrat Congressman Thanedar (and others!) is a serious intention to wage a War on Democracy. A war that, unless plainly repudiated by leading Democrats and others (hello AOC? Bernie?), means that the Democratic Party has no intention of supporting democracy at all. (RELATED: Five Quick Things: AOC 2028? Yes, Please!) And if, in fact, the Democrats ever did win another election, they could easily be seen as determined to make that election America’s last. The time for House Republicans to take on this impeachment nonsense — the third time around for President Trump — is now. Which is to say, it’s time to censure Congressman Thanedar and bring his party’s War on Democracy to an immediate halt. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Trump’s 100-Day Triumph Dr. Oz to the Medicare Advantage Rescue A Washington Establishment Letter Targets Trump The post The Democrats’ War on Democracy appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Fifty years ago this week, on April 30, 1975, Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, fell to communist North Vietnamese forces, and the world watched as helicopters rescued the last remaining Americans from our embassy. America’s longest war — up to that point — was over. It was a war — like the Korean War — fought by the United States to assist a post-World War II ally in resisting takeover by a ruthless communist regime backed by the Soviet Union and Communist China. As Norman Podhoretz pointed out in a brilliant retrospective of the war, Vietnam, like Korea, was viewed by U.S. policymakers within the context of the larger policy of containment, formulated by the Truman administration in the early years of the Cold War. Containment’s most effective theoretician was George F. Kennan, the director of the State Department’s policy planning staff who in 1947 explained the policy in a famous and influential article in Foreign Affairs titled “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” using the pseudonym “X.” Less immediately influential were two critics of the policy — Walter Lippmann, who leveled his criticism in a series of columns later collected into a book titled The Cold War, and James Burnham, who attacked the policy in his book Containment or Liberation?. Lippmann wrote that the policy of containment as explained by Kennan — opposing Soviet aggression everywhere on the Eurasian landmass — would cede the strategic initiative to our communist adversaries and stretch America’s resources too thin, leading to a dangerous gap between American commitments and power, which Lippmann had identified as evidence of a failed foreign policy in his book U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic (1943). Lippmann called the containment policy a “strategic monstrosity” that “commits the United States to confront the Russians with counterforce at ‘every point’ along the line, instead of at those points which we have selected because, there at those points, our kind of sea and air power can best be exerted.” Moreover, Lippmann considered Asia a secondary, peripheral theater where the United States lacked the “power, the influence, the means, and the knowledge” to succeed. He warned against the U.S. launching moral “crusades” to remake the world in our image. Lippmann in the 1960s was an early critic of U.S. direct military involvement in Vietnam, predicting that it would be “futile, unnecessary, and domestically harmful.” He became a chief critic of the Johnson administration because of Vietnam, even to the point of backing Richard Nixon for president in 1968, viewing Nixon, accurately, as a foreign policy realist who would get us out of Vietnam, which Nixon eventually did. (RELATED: Walter Lippmann: From the Progressive Era to the Cold War) Around the same time that Lippmann was criticizing containment as imperial overstretch, James Burnham wrote a Cold War trilogy punctuated by Containment or Liberation? that criticized containment as too passive and defensive to win the Cold War. Containment, Burnham wrote, was a strategy of vacillation that would end in defeat. Burnham recommended a strategy of “Liberation” or what others termed “rollback.” (RELATED: James Burnham: the Sage of Kent, Connecticut) Burnham in the 1960s and early 1970s, like Lippmann, wrote often about the Vietnam War. Unlike Lippmann, Burnham accepted the “domino theory” as applicable to Southeast Asia. But like Lippmann, though from a different perspective, Burnham was critical of the way the Kennedy–Johnson administration waged war in Vietnam. The United States was not winning the war, he wrote in his National Review columns, because our policymakers were wedded to the “strategic prison” of containment. We fought the war almost wholly on the ground in South Vietnam, instead of taking the war to the enemy’s center of gravity in Hanoi. As early as 1962, Burnham wrote that if the U.S. was serious in Vietnam, “we would not confine our military … activities to South Vietnam itself. We would extend our operations to Laos, Cambodia, northeast Thailand, and … to the enemy bases in North Vietnam, and in China, too.” If we weren’t prepared to do that, Burnham wrote, the war would become “senseless butchery.” As the 1960s wore on without victory or even a plausible strategy for victory, Burnham sensed that U.S. strategy was to get out of the war with the least loss of credibility. Nixon’s Vietnamization policy confirmed Burnham’s prescience. When he heard about the terms of the peace agreement in late 1972- early 1973, Burnham declared that we had lost the war. When American forces exited the region, Burnham said, the North Vietnamese would triumph. He was right. Burnham’s final reflection on the Vietnam War was written a few weeks after the fall of Saigon in 1975. He suggested that our defeat was a manifestation of “imperial overstretch” and worried that it could lead to a withdrawal from Asia and strategic retrenchment. Yet, he also wrote that objectively, Vietnam was a “minor affair,” which would have greater psychological effects than geopolitical ones. Burnham, like Gen. Douglas MacArthur, thought that when you wage war, you should do so to win it. Lippmann didn’t believe Vietnam was important enough to U.S. security to fight there. The Kennedy–Johnson administration chose a middle course that cost more than 58,000 American dead in an unsuccessful effort to save an ally and contain communism. Perhaps the best reflection on the Vietnam War came from Richard Nixon, who inherited the mess from the Kennedy–Johnson administration, ended U.S. involvement in the context of strategic triangulation with China and Russia, and recognized that Vietnamization was the only politically acceptable, though imperfect, strategy to salvage what was left of American credibility and domestic peace. His book No More Vietnams should be required reading for students of the war and foreign policy in general. “[O]ur defeat in Vietnam,” he wrote, “tarnish[ed] our ideals, weaken[ed] our spirit, crippl[ed] our will, and turn[ed] us into … a diplomatic dwarf in a world in which the steadfast exercise of American power was needed more than ever before.” It took Ronald Reagan, who called the Vietnam War a “noble cause,” to restore “the steadfast exercise of American power” and win the Cold War by going beyond containment as suggested by James Burnham so many years before. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Hal Brands Distorts Mackinder to Bash Trump Buckley at 100 Trump, Theodore Roosevelt, and US Naval Power The post Reflections on Our Defeat in Vietnam: Lippmann, Burnham and Nixon appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.